Immediately after the election, Democrat calls for nationwide gun confiscation by force, reminds gun owners the government has nuclear weapons

California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, who reportedly has expressed an interest in seeking his party’s 2020 presidential nomination to challenge POTUS Donald Trump, may have just killed off his candidacy before it officially starts.

Swalwell is a well-known advocate for stricter gun control. In fact, you could say he’s a real anti-gun Nazi.

In an op-ed on Thursday, published in USA Today (of course), Swalwell proposed legislation that would authorize the government to implement an Australian-style gun buy-back program specifically for so-called “assault” rifles, which are not military-grade and only resemble, physically, real assault weapons.

But he went a step further. He wants the government to ‘go after’ any American who becomes a “resister” — which is nothing more than code for jailing/killing any citizen who refuses to buckle to tyranny and an unconstitutional edict.

If that isn’t bad enough, when challenged on his opinions by pro-gun activists on Twitter like Joe Biggs, Swalwell reverted to the ‘nuclear option.’ Literally.

“So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your f—g mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power,” he wrote.

“And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”

Forget irresponsible, though certainly, his statement is. That has to be the dumbest thing a sitting member of Congress has ever said.

This is how badly Democrats hate the Second Amendment

The exchange didn’t end there. Biggs responded, “So our government would nuke its own country in order to take guns? Wow.”

“Don’t be so dramatic,” Swalwell replied. “You claiming you need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous. But you seem like a reasonable person. If an assault weapons ban happens, I’m sure you’ll follow law.”

He added: “No one is nuking anyone or threatening that. I’m telling you this is not the 18th Century. The argument that you would go to war with your government if an assault weapons ban was in place is ludicrous and inflames the gun debate. Which is what you want.”

Don’t be so dramatic. You claiming you need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous. But you seem like a reasonable person. If an assault weapons ban happens, I’m sure you’ll follow law.

Just who is being “dramatic?” Swalwell was the one who suggested a nuclear response to patriots seeking to restore their rights — which is what such a rebellion would be; an effort to restore rights taken by the very government from which Swalwell says we have nothing to fear.

We’re pretty sure our American patriot forefathers fighting for our independence from Great Britain never thought they were being overly “dramatic.” But they sure did think their government at the time — the British crown — was being tyrannical.

In addition to the lunacy of suggesting that any administration would actually authorize a nuclearstrike against American citizens and cities for any reason, Swalwell wrote openly of his desire to sack the Second Amendment altogether (while, naturally, using his First Amendment right to speak).

“There’s something new and different about the surviving Parkland high schoolers’ demands,” Swalwell wrote, referencing the February shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High by a student long known to officials and police as a problem child. “They dismiss the moral equivalence we’ve made for far too long regarding the Second Amendment. I’ve been guilty of it myself, telling constituents and reporters that ‘we can protect the Second Amendment and protect lives.’”

This is a blatant admission that, were it up to Swalwell, he would simply disregard the Second Amendment in whole, without bothering even to try to amend the Constitution.